One of the drawbacks to green alternatives in automobiles is the extreme amount of amps it takes to run a heater than can compete with the heat given from an internal combustion engine.  The electric cars must drain the battery to run a heater, and according to tests, extreme winter coldness can cut the range by HALF.  What this means, is that it takes as much energy to run the heater as is does to actually run and move the car!  With the internal combustion engine alternative, the heater is run just fine from merely an offload transfer of heat from the cooling system fluid passing through a heat transfer box in the cab.  Compare that "free heat" to running COILS that glow orange with a fan to blow air past it in the electric vehicle, an energy cost you paid for the night before when you charged your electric car.  Like running 10 blow dryers at the same time to heat the car!! Think what kind of cost that is. I would think twice before using that kind of energy on myself for heat, because AFTER ALL, we would be paying for that car heat specifically, charging our hypothetical electric car right out of our own electrical bill for our home. Would you run 10 blow dryers at home to heat yourself temporarily in a small space that has lots of glass windows continually getting cooled by freezing winds against the glass?   In an electric car, that's what takes place. Your electric bill is going right out the windows.  In a gas powered car? It's a "free" heat, going to be used one way or another, so there is no additional loss from using gas.
"If an EV requires 40 kWh to recharge a fully depleted battery, and the rate is 18 cents per kWh, that's $7.20 for a fill-up. Depending on the Southern California Edison rate plan, a 2018 Tesla Model 3, rated at 26 kWh/100 miles, would cost as little as $1.56 for 50 miles' worth of power if home charging started at 11 p.m. Or it could cost four times as much, $6.37, if the car was routinely charged during peak hours." (source: EDMUNDS.COM) 

The story was by TOM KRISHER.  He gave 5 reasons why (like a "top 10" list) it won't happen anytime soon:
https://www.apnews.com/b67a0d6b6413406fb4121553cdf0b95a

1) SNOW AND WEATHER
Tom said: "When it’s heavy enough to cover the pavement, snow blocks the view of lane lines that vehicle cameras use to find their way. Researchers so far haven’t figured out a way around this. That’s why much of the testing is done in warm-weather climates such as Arizona and California."

• REBUTTAL by Grant Johnson: This is a problem that is probably BIGGER for HUMAN drivers, for they too, lose track of where they should be on the road when it snows. I know, I have driven on a road covered with snow and where the striping was not visible. This is not an autonomous problem, an AV can simply be programmed not to drive by following a stripe (there are other ways), and in the FUTURE, the roadway infrastructure will have wireless communication with the AV so that visual camera work is a FIRST PHASE ONLY approach to navigation. In the future, there would be no need for cameras to guide, the infrastructure will have technology and IT will guide as a default.  I did not see SNOW as a problem for AV anymore than a problem for HUMANS.

2) PAVEMENT LINES AND CURBS
Tom said: "Across the globe, roadway marking lines are different, or they may not even exist. Lane lines aren’t standardized, so vehicles have to learn how to drive differently in each city. Sometimes there aren’t any curbs to help vehicles judge lane width."

• REBUTTAL by Grant Johnson: Humans don't do a great job at this either. So this is not a "new" problem created by AV.  This is such a short term and temporary problem once AV gets implemented, there will be devices that help navigate, and it will NOT be paint.  Not a deal killer, and certainly not something that would cost decades of time, not even a year. Just different devices.  Once AV is implemented and ubiquitous in a city, it goes without saying that the roadway infrastructure will also be electrified or there will be wireless communication devices installed at proper intervals along the roadway, maybe IN the roadway, and so the camera dependent navigation will be phased out and replaced by sophisticated dedicated infrastructure communications with the vehicle. Cameras would still be employed to see if there are obstructions on the road that the vehicle needs to stop for, but the need for complex decision making on interpreting video of the roadway ahead is going to disappear quickly.  Infrastructure will be reimagined and redesigned for AV and will have various wireless technologies imbedded in the system to guide and communicate with AV in motion.

3) DEALING WITH HUMAN DRIVERS
Tom said: "For many years, autonomous vehicles will have to deal with humans who don’t always play by the rules. They double-park or walk in front of cars. Recently in Pittsburgh, an Argo backup driver had to take over when his car stopped during a right turn, blocking an intersection when it couldn’t immediately decide whether to go around a double-parked delivery truck."

• REBUTTAL by Grant Johnson: Humans ARE the problem with transportation today, and are directly at FAULT when it comes to death on the highways and roadways. 40,000 fatalities in the USA alone, and these are nearly 100% caused by 1) HUMANS who are AGGRESSIVE, are 2) DRUNK, and are 3) DISTRACTED.  A tiny handful of the accidents are related to a "technical" problem in the vehicle, not even on the radar of cause for fatality.  AV had a few blips, like the UBER accident with a PED, and where the PED was JWALKING at night, in dark clothes, and was at fault. There was no human driver who could have avoided here. See my well detailed article on this here: http://www.prism.engineering/uber-car-fatal-ped-accident-with-ped.html   Until AV becomes ubiquitous, transportation safety will always be dumbed down to the lowest denominator, the human driver, for they are the fault for 99% of the accident fatalities.  AV will reduce the 40,000 fatalities to ZERO, because there will be no human element to be AGGRESSIVE, to be DRUNK, or to be DISTRACTED while driving.  

4) LEFT TURNS
Tom said: "Deciding when to turn left in front of oncoming traffic without a green arrow is one of the more difficult tasks for human drivers and one that causes many crashes. Autonomous vehicles have the same trouble.

• REBUTTAL by Grant Johnson: Autonomous Vehicles will NOT need a traffic signal to know when to go. This will be a computerized decision. There will not be a human taking a chance and having a mishap in judgment (a very very small percentage of fatalities for this, BTW...most are because of aggression, drunk driving, and distractions).  The AV car or truck will communicate with other AV cars and trucks to know where they are and when they can make the turn safely and without collision.  This is NOT a problem that AV will have, navigating left turns at an intersection.  In fact, it will all be solved to Vision AV ZERO fatalities, as the fatal human elements will be removed from the equation. People shouldn't fear AV, they should fear the present, because there is a much greater chance that they could be killed on the roads today compared to the roads of tomorrow. Humans are killing people by 1) Agression, 2) Drunk and Drug impaired driving, and 3) Distractions while driving.  THIS is how it is happening now.  We need to embrace safety.  We need to embrace the future on this, and AV is the answer to safety as these human factors are removed.  

5) CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE
Tom said: "The fatal Uber crash near Phoenix last year did more than push the pause button on testing. It also rattled consumers who someday will be asked to ride in self-driving vehicles. Surveys taken after the Uber crash showed that drivers are reluctant to give up control to a computer."

• REBUTTAL by Grant Johnson: Tom works for the very organizations, sensational and headline grabbing journalists, who seeking clicks and hits chose to demonize the AV technology with the UBER accident, rather than look sensibly at what REALLY happened. What happened is we had a pedestrian, who late at night in the pitch black, chose to cross a 45 mph roadway and step into the path of a 40 mph moving vehicle.  In the dark, pedestrians can't be seen by a human driver more than 100 feet away. Especially if they are coming from the left (as headlights shine slightly to the right).  She would have died no matter who the driver, that's the point.  Check out this detailed analysis I made on the accident and see if you don't come to the same conclusion I did, that AV was unnecessarily demonized, and the mainstream news had EVERYTHING to do with that, and not the truth.  See my well detailed article on this here: http://www.prism.engineering/uber-car-fatal-ped-accident-with-ped.html  
  

For some reason, it appears that mainstream news people are writing articles that cast doubt on the good that AV can do, and will do in the very near future, if we embrace it.  Holding on to the status quo is offensive to me, my son died in a car accident, hit by one of those DRUNK drivers in a head on collision.  As long as we have situations of danger like this, where humans can make huge driving mistakes, or even through their aggression in all of its forms: speeding, reckless, rage, etc., we will have more death. 40,000 per year.  It is time we step back and say, you know, our existing system is NOT working to reduce this. We need to try something new. We need to give the AV the chance it deserves, and we need a better education system other than the main stream news.